The AI Responds to the Following Issues
TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 22 Dec 2025
Satoshi Ashikaga – TRANSCEND Media Service
- On Kijuro Shidehara’s Pacifism
- On the Majority of the Japanese People’s Possible View Over Nuclear Armament
- Reasons Why the Political Leaders of the Major Powerful Countries Are Tend to Depend on Nuclear Deterrence Rather Than Efforts for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons
Introduction
On 18 December 2025, one of the senior government officials of Japan claimed that Japan should be armed with nuclear weapons.[i] This timing, coincidentally or not, was important that his off-the-record comment was reported approximately one month and a half after the Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi’s statement over Taiwan.[ii] While Takaichi’s statement was formal, the senior official’s comment was informal, both of which are, it can be interpreted, combined to indicate a certain direction that Japan has begun to tread gradually being away from pacifism.[iii] Besides, China and Japan are disputing over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands[iv] and the South China Sea[v].
On one hand, however, the Japanese government “officially”[vi] [vii] has maintained the three non-nuclear principles;[viii] [ix] on the other hand, however, it seems that this country has already begun to discuss the possible nuclear armament.[x] [xi]
Which stance of the Japanese government is true? There is an old saying, “Deeds, not words.” In fact, see. → “Japan won’t join U.N. meeting on nuclear weapons ban, citing support for U.S. deterrence”. Then, will Japan become one of the nuclear weapon possessing countries one day?[xii] [xiii]
It is no wonder, therefore, even if some people both in Japan and abroad think that Japan’s pacifist era is about to end.[xiv] Some of the hibakushas in Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have uttered, “Et tu, Iaponia?”, instead of “Et tu, Brute?”[xv] [xvi]
The next day, I asked some relevant questions to the Google AI, because I wanted to know what the AI would answer to the questions I asked, mentioned in PART ONE, PART TWO and PART THREE.
PART ONE is about Kijuro Shidehara[xvii], one of the very main architects of the Article 9 of the “Constitution of Japan”. This is the constitution, which has been called, a “Peace Constitution”.[xviii] Is the Article 9 unrealistic in the contemporary international situations? If Shideha were alive today, what would he respond to such criticism?
PART TWO is about the majority of the Japanese people’s possible views over Japan’s armament with nuclear weapons, in accordance with the AI.
PART THREE is about the reasons of the tendency that the political leaders of the major powerful countries are tend to rely on nuclear deterrence for the defense of their countries and for making peace in the long-run rather than the effort for nuclear abolition.
Although it may not be very wise to understand or interpret the AI’s response without rigorous critical thinking, the AI’s views could be used as a kind of reference(s) for one to think about the relevant issues and/or questions. Needless to say, the AI can be effective when it is used as a tool to assist, provoke and/or inspire one’s thinking, neither as a tool for one to skip his or her thinking over the relevant issues nor as the replacement of one’s thinking.
I hope that this article will work well for the promotion of debates and discussions to bring about a lasting peace to this very dangerous contemporary world.[xix]
The questions I asked and the AI’s responses to them are mentioned below.
——————————————————————————————————-
PART ONE: If Kijuro Shidehara Were Alive Today…
Questions:
(1) As one of the senior officials of the Japanese government says that Japan should possess nuclear weapons, if Kijuro Shidehara were alive today, what would he say to that?
(2) If Shidehara’s views are criticized as unrealistic in the contemporary world, what would he rebut to that?
Note: For the convenience of the reader, the text of the Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan was added in the Italic letters.
The AI’s Reply:
Quote:
Kijuro Shidehara, a key figure in the drafting of Japan’s pacifist post-World War II constitution, would be a strong opponent of Japan possessing nuclear weapons. He advocated for a foreign policy based on pacifism, international cooperation, and economic prosperity through non-military means, as encapsulated in the war-abolishing Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution.
Text of the Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan:
Article 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
If Shidehara were alive today:
- He would strongly oppose Japan possessing nuclear weapons, as this fundamentally contradicts his vision of a demilitarized Japan committed to “an international peace based on justice and order”.
- He would likely argue that nuclear proliferation would harm Japan’s international standing, increase regional tensions, and divert resources from economic and social development.
- He would point to the devastating experiences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a powerful reminder of the horrors of nuclear weapons, reinforcing his belief that Japan should lead the world in abolishing war.
- His perspective would emphasize that true national security lies in cultivating good relations with all countriesand pursuing economic diplomacy rather than military strength.
Rebuttal to criticisms of his views as “unrealistic”:
If his views were criticized as unrealistic in the contemporary world, Shidehara would likely offer the following rebuttals:
- He would argue that “realism” is not solely defined by military power, but by a nation’s ability to adapt to changing global circumstances and build a stable, prosperous future through cooperation.
- He would highlight Japan’s post-war success as a leading global economy, achieved without a large military, as proof that his pacifist approach was, in fact, highly effective and pragmatic.
- He might contend that an over-reliance on military power and the pursuit of nuclear weapons is the true “unrealistic” path, as it risks triggering an arms race and potentially leading to national isolation and catastrophe, echoing the mistakes of Imperial Japan’s past.
- He would maintain that adhering to a principled foreign policy, even when challenging, is essential for long-term global stability and that Japan has a moral obligation to promote the ideal of peace to the world.
Unquote:
——————————————————————————————————-
PART TWO:
Question:
Given that even a senior Japanese government official argues that Japan should be armed with nuclear weapons, and given that the international situations around Japan are becoming tense ever more, is it possible to assume that the majority of the Japanese people today agree that Japan should possess nuclear weapons?
The AI’s Reply:
Quote:
While some senior Japanese government officials and political candidates have recently voiced support for possessing nuclear weapons, it is not possible to assume that a majority of the Japanese people agree with this stance. Despite rising regional tensions and a growing openness to discussing defense alternatives, public opinion polls in 2025 continue to show strong support for Japan’s non-nuclear principles.
Current Public Sentiment (2025)
- Support for Non-Nuclear Principles:As of 2024–2025, approximately 73% of Japanese respondents believe that the “Three Non-Nuclear Principles” (not possessing, not producing, and not permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons) should be upheld.
- Opposition to Armament:Among successful candidates in the August 2025 upper house election, 60% explicitly stated that Japan should neither possess nor share nuclear arms.
- Reliance on the Nuclear Umbrella:Public opinion is divided on the U.S. nuclear umbrella; while some see it as necessary, 55% of respondents in a 2025 survey stated that reliance on it is “unnecessary,” with many in this group favoring Japan joining the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Shifting Perspectives vs. Established Taboos
- Evolving Defense Views:There is a clear trend toward supporting a stronger conventional Record highs of 62%–64% of the public now support bolstering Japan’s Self-Defense Forces (SDF).
- Openness to Debate:While the possession of nuclear weapons remains a significant taboo due to the legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there is a “growing openness” to discussing alternative nuclear options, such as “nuclear sharing” or allowing the U.S. to bring nuclear weapons into Japanese territory.
- Political Context:Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, known for hawkish views, has considered reviewing the non-nuclear principles. However, even within her administration, such moves are acknowledged as potentially triggering massive domestic and international backlash.
Conclusion
While a minority of the public and some political leaders advocate for nuclear armament as a “realistic” deterrent against threats from North Korea, China, and Russia, the majority of the Japanese population remains opposed to the possession of nuclear weapons, prioritizing the country’s pacifist Constitution and its unique historical status as the only nation to suffer atomic bombings.
Unquote:
—————————————————————————-
PART THREE:
Questions:
(1) Why do the political leaders in major big countries, including the US, Russia, China, India, etc., are tend to depend on nuclear deterrence?
(2) Is nuclear deterrence more effective in defending one’s country and in making peace in the long-run than working for the abolition of nuclear weapons?
The AI’s Reply:
Quote:
Political leaders in major powers rely on nuclear deterrence as a strategic tool to ensure national survival and prevent large-scale conflict through the threat of catastrophic retaliation. As of 2025, whether deterrence is more effective than disarmament remains a central debate, with proponents citing its historical success in preventing major power wars and critics highlighting the existential risks of accidental or escalatory use.
- Reasons Leaders Depend on Nuclear Deterrence
Leaders of major powers—including the US, Russia, China, and India
—continue to depend on nuclear deterrence for several key reasons:
- Strategic Stability (MAD):The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) ensures that if one country attacks another with nuclear weapons, the retaliatory strike will result in the total destruction of both, thus discouraging any initial attack.
- Cost-Benefit Influence:Deterrence aims to influence an adversary’s calculations, making the perceived costs and risks of aggression far outweigh any potential gains.
- Survival and Sovereignty:Russia’s 2025 nuclear doctrine, for instance, emphasizes nuclear weapons as essential for ensuring “sovereignty and territorial integrity” against existential threats.
- Extended Deterrence:The US provides a “nuclear umbrella” to over 30 allies, assuring them of aid (potentially nuclear) if attacked, which prevents these allies from developing their own nuclear arsenals.
- Power Projection:China’s 2025 expansion of its nuclear arsenal is driven by a desire to match US capabilities and bolster its resolve in regional conflicts, such as over Taiwan.
- Effectiveness vs. Disarmament
The debate over whether deterrence is more effective than disarmament for long-term peace is categorized by two opposing viewpoints:
Arguments for the Effectiveness of Deterrence:
- Prevention of Major War:Proponents argue that nuclear weapons have prevented a repeat of a conventional World War for over 80 years by making the cost of such a conflict “unacceptable”.
- Stability-Instability Paradox:While nuclear weapons may not prevent small-scale proxy wars, they are credited with preventing these conflicts from escalating into global catastrophes.
- Conventional Restraint:Some argue that without a nuclear deterrent, nations would feel freer to engage in large-scale conventional wars, leading to even greater global instability.
Arguments for the Necessity of Abolition:
- Risk of Accidents and Escalation:Critics point to “near-misses” and the risk of “sleepwalking into conflict” due to cyber-attacks on command-and-control systems or misinterpretations of intent.
- The Goal of Disarmament:International bodies, such as the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, argue that disarmament is the “only absolute guarantee” against the use of nuclear weapons.
- Erosion of Global Order:The 2025 unraveling of arms control treaties, such as the upcoming expiration of New START in 2026, has led to a more dangerous multipolar world where proliferation is once again increasing.
Ultimately, while nuclear deterrence is currently viewed by major powers as a necessary foundation for security, 2025 developments suggest that the global community is increasingly divided on whether this status quo is sustainable or if a fundamental shift toward disarmament is required for long-term peace.
Unquote:
[i] Japan should have nuclear weapons, official reportedly says – The Japan Times
[ii] See. Hawkish and Risky: Takaichi’s Course, the U.S., and Japan’s Future – Eastern Angle
[iii] See. Japan debates nuclear policy amid China, N. Korea threats – DW – 11/25/2025
[iv] See. China’s military build-up could ‘seriously’ affect Japan’s security, Tokyo warns | South China Morning Post
[v] See. China’s military build-up could ‘seriously’ affect Japan’s security, Tokyo warns | South China Morning Post
[vi] See. Nuclear Noh Drama: Tokyo, Washington and the Missing Nuclear Agreements – Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus
[vii] See. Secret Agreed Minute – 1969 (Declassified by Wakaizumi Kei)
[viii] Japan gov’t affirms no-nuke policy, stays mum on official’s nuclear remarks
[ix] “‘We adhere to the three non-nuclear principles” — Japan Pushes Back on Nuclear Weapons Calls | APT
[x] See. Abe suggests Japan start ‘nuclear sharing’ discussion | The Asahi Shimbun: Breaking News, Japan News and Analysis
[xi] See. Japan’s Strategic Future and Implications for the US-Japan Alliance • Stimson Center
[xii] Why Japan Needs Nuclear Weapons
[xiii] See. Japan Is Destined to Have Nuclear Weapons
[xiv] See. End Of Japan’s Pacifist Era? New PM Takaichi’s Rise Signals A Harder Line On China
[xv] See. ‘Hibakusha’ infuriated by Japan’s no-show at TPNW meeting
[xvi] See. Survivors’ voices 80 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki sound a warning and a call to action
[xvii] See. Kijūrō Shidehara – Premiership (1945-1946) Wikipedia
[xviii] See. Significance of Japan’s Pacifist Constitution – World History Edu
[xix] See. In December 25th will the world end
_____________________________________________
Satoshi Ashikaga is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment. Having worked as researcher, development program/project officer, legal protection/humanitarian assistance officer, human rights monitor-negotiator, managing-editor, and more, he prefers a peaceful and prudent life. His previous work experiences, including those in war zones and war-torn zones, constantly remind him of the invaluableness of peace.
Tags: Artificial Intelligence AI
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 22 Dec 2025.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: The AI Responds to the Following Issues, is included. Thank you.
If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.
Join the discussion!
We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.